BRIGGS wrote:It doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand the game has dramatically changed. If you don't have a serious 3 point arsenal in your attack you aren't paying attention

I appreciate that Phil want's a system, and less iso ball, less brute force.

I think the challenge is similar to what MDA faced here with Melo- you've got veterans that are either incapable or unwilling to adapt and buy in. That, and their natural lack of defensive skills, and you've got swiss cheese with little defensive effort.

If Phil wants to run the triangle, he should coach, and not force feed a system. And he should go get players that fit - meaning don't trade for Derrick Rose, don't max out Melo and give him an NTC.

The dinosaur is less the system, more the man who doesn't seem to want to adapt, change, grow.

crzymdups wrote:

JrZyHuStLa wrote:

crzymdups wrote:

JrZyHuStLa wrote:

BRIGGS wrote:

martin wrote:

BRIGGS wrote:

martin wrote:

BRIGGS wrote:It doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand the game has dramatically changed. If you don't have a serious 3 point arsenal in your attack you aren't paying attention

You don't care for Spurs offense either, right?

No I like spurs everything

They are bottom 10 in 3pt shots per 100 possessions in league

They really are the innovators of the 3. I like their balance. You don't have to take 30 3s but they know how to spread floor.

That's a different argument. You're saying shooting 3s is a must. The Spurs prove you are wrong.

The Spurs were 7th in the league in made threes in 2013, when they made the Finals and lost in 7 games. They were 12th in league the next year when they beat the Heat in a rematch. In 2012 they were 2nd in the league.

They have fallen in terms of makes in recent years, and surprise have disappointed in the playoffs. Even this year, with lower makes, they lead the league in percentage. Pop has always placed a high value on the three.

They're 25th in the league in 3 point attempts, and yet still the best team in the west. This goes back to the original point. You don't have to shoot the 3 as much as the OP is suggesting.

Thus just shows you the many ways they're capable of winning.

Yes, but it is valid to note that you are talking about a team that has typically ranked at the top of the league in three point shooting in terms of volume and percentage over the years, in recent years, under the same coach, with a very similar roster. Perhaps this year is a fluke and they're still good.

If someone is using stats on 3 point volume with the Spurs and haven't watched their system of offense-- they are simply talking out if their arse. The Spurs started the nba on using the 3 ball as a means of attack and spreading the floor and they still do. The number you take does not matter it's how it spreads their offense out. No difference between being # 5 in volume or number 20 it's their offense-- just watch them

crzymdups wrote:

JrZyHuStLa wrote:

BRIGGS wrote:

martin wrote:

BRIGGS wrote:

martin wrote:

BRIGGS wrote:It doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand the game has dramatically changed. If you don't have a serious 3 point arsenal in your attack you aren't paying attention

You don't care for Spurs offense either, right?

No I like spurs everything

They are bottom 10 in 3pt shots per 100 possessions in league

They really are the innovators of the 3. I like their balance. You don't have to take 30 3s but they know how to spread floor.

That's a different argument. You're saying shooting 3s is a must. The Spurs prove you are wrong.

The Spurs were 7th in the league in made threes in 2013, when they made the Finals and lost in 7 games. They were 12th in league the next year when they beat the Heat in a rematch. In 2012 they were 2nd in the league.

They have fallen in terms of makes in recent years, and surprise have disappointed in the playoffs. Even this year, with lower makes, they lead the league in percentage. Pop has always placed a high value on the three.

Hmmmm. I think you are conflating stats and not considering pace. Correct me if I am wrong but 3pt attempts per 100 possessions seems to be the best marker to see if a team emphasizes the 3pt shot, this is what BRIGGS is suggesting. And season to season this is hit and miss cause you emphasis your team offense to the players a bit (not good 3pt shooters, you back off on that).

Here is SA ranking in the league of 3pt attempts per 100 possessions, I think this would smooth over pace/possessions.

http://stats.nba.com/teams/traditional/#!?sort=FG3A&dir=-1&Season=2012-13&SeasonType=Regular%20Season&PerMode=Per100Possessions

Year Rank
2010-11: #6
2011-12: #7
2012-13: #9
2013-14: #15
2014-15: #15
2015-16: #25
2016-17: #25

So, this is what I conclude. Pop don't give a **** what "modern basketball" is doing, he is doing his own thing. When the whole league is going towards MORE 3pt shots per possessions, his team is going in the opposite direction.

Oh, and here are the Lakers/Triangle/Phil stats for his last stint, they won championships in 2010 and 2009:

2009-10: #11
2008-09: #16
2007-08: #7
2006-07: #5
2005-06: #6

Chew on that and let me know what you think. Am I reading the this wrong? Is Pop the anti-advanced stat, anti-modern basketball guy, and it sure looks like Phil and the Triangle were shooting more 3s over a 5 year time span compared to the rest of the league in a different era?

What conclusions do you'all get from this?

Nalod wrote:

BRIGGS wrote:

Nalod wrote:I'd rather have a season like this than succumb to mediocrity and starphuch like roster.
We need players who hustle off the ball, play defense, and will commit to system. Call it what ever you want but when players are Iso first, have no aptitude for a team concept then they are not part of a winning team.
Players like that can succeed with Lebron because he makes others around him better.

What the team needs most is Lonzo Ball. It needs a brain. Somehow getting Ball would be the equivilant of getting Ewing. The management is poor-- we need no brainer a with some luck as well up top with a plan to make us more athletic as well

True, but at the same time the Lonzo Ball Hype machine is in full swing.
Im not emotional about the team after a loss as you might be. You do tend to post a bit about what we need. I do get on you for that.
YOur not wrong, but the time and space of how this happens takes years and luck. Parker in Milwaukee has been a hard luck situation while Giannis is an allstar, he is still raw and developing nicely. Philly for all its picks has yet to draft that one cornerstone bluechip player. Simmons might be the one. My point is not to excuse or defend phil, only that a rebuild takes time. Patience is something phil has, but not fans and not media.

If Phil had patience he wouldn’t have gone for NOW PLAYERS. For the 100000000000 times, Phil DID NOT intended to rebuild, he just did a crappy job building a right now team. The Knicks are loosing games because they are a bad team not because of this great rebuilding plan.

knicks1248 wrote:

martin wrote:The Spurs play good team ball and good system ball

How long has the spurs core been together. Lee said it earlier in the season, when you practice defense against triangle sets, that's how your preparing to defend. Exactly what team runs the triangle 90% of the time but the knicks.

Do you have a point? The discussion was about offense.

If everyone is running pick and roll and spread, and everyone is practicing against that, it would make sense to run an offense that no one is practicing against. That's the same logic you just used.

martin wrote:

knicks1248 wrote:

martin wrote:The Spurs play good team ball and good system ball

How long has the spurs core been together. Lee said it earlier in the season, when you practice defense against triangle sets, that's how your preparing to defend. Exactly what team runs the triangle 90% of the time but the knicks.

Do you have a point? The discussion was about offense.

If everyone is running pick and roll and spread, and everyone is practicing against that, it would make sense to run an offense that no one is practicing against. That's the same logic you just used.

OK, I get your point, now explain to me why have the Knicks won no more than 7 games after the all-star game for 3 straight season and 3 different rosters...what good has come out of running the triangle

martin wrote:

crzymdups wrote:

JrZyHuStLa wrote:

BRIGGS wrote:

martin wrote:

BRIGGS wrote:

martin wrote:

BRIGGS wrote:It doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand the game has dramatically changed. If you don't have a serious 3 point arsenal in your attack you aren't paying attention

You don't care for Spurs offense either, right?

No I like spurs everything

They are bottom 10 in 3pt shots per 100 possessions in league

They really are the innovators of the 3. I like their balance. You don't have to take 30 3s but they know how to spread floor.

That's a different argument. You're saying shooting 3s is a must. The Spurs prove you are wrong.

The Spurs were 7th in the league in made threes in 2013, when they made the Finals and lost in 7 games. They were 12th in league the next year when they beat the Heat in a rematch. In 2012 they were 2nd in the league.

They have fallen in terms of makes in recent years, and surprise have disappointed in the playoffs. Even this year, with lower makes, they lead the league in percentage. Pop has always placed a high value on the three.

Hmmmm. I think you are conflating stats and not considering pace. Correct me if I am wrong but 3pt attempts per 100 possessions seems to be the best marker to see if a team emphasizes the 3pt shot, this is what BRIGGS is suggesting. And season to season this is hit and miss cause you emphasis your team offense to the players a bit (not good 3pt shooters, you back off on that).

Here is SA ranking in the league of 3pt attempts per 100 possessions, I think this would smooth over pace/possessions.

http://stats.nba.com/teams/traditional/#!?sort=FG3A&dir=-1&Season=2012-13&SeasonType=Regular%20Season&PerMode=Per100Possessions

Year Rank
2010-11: #6
2011-12: #7
2012-13: #9
2013-14: #15
2014-15: #15
2015-16: #25
2016-17: #25

So, this is what I conclude. Pop don't give a **** what "modern basketball" is doing, he is doing his own thing. When the whole league is going towards MORE 3pt shots per possessions, his team is going in the opposite direction.

Oh, and here are the Lakers/Triangle/Phil stats for his last stint, they won championships in 2010 and 2009:

2009-10: #11
2008-09: #16
2007-08: #7
2006-07: #5
2005-06: #6

Chew on that and let me know what you think. Am I reading the this wrong? Is Pop the anti-advanced stat, anti-modern basketball guy, and it sure looks like Phil and the Triangle were shooting more 3s over a 5 year time span compared to the rest of the league in a different era?

What conclusions do you'all get from this?

I don't think we can compare this Knicks roster to that Lakers roster, for starters. They had a top ten all time player in Kobe, who had played the Triangle most of his adult life, and Pau who is also a hall of famer. Kobe said it best - the Knicks aren't running what those Lakers ran, compared to they're Triangle, we're a "f**kin' square" (<-- his words).

Also, the Lakers shot a fair amount of threes, but less once Pau arrived and Bynum matured - they became more of a post team with those two. Pau got there trade deadline of the 2008 season, so it makes sense. The 2005-6 Lakers were a basically the freewheelin' Kobe and Lamar Odom show. Kobe's 81pt game happened during that season, also he averaged 40ppg for a month. Phil and Kobe constantly argued about the offense, and there were rumors Kobe would be traded to the Bulls over the summer in 2007. Then they got Pau and the Triangle worked again - maybe it was post play, or maybe it was having a team with two hall of famers in their prime - their 3pt shots went down once they got Pau though.

Similarly, the Spurs started taking a lot fewer threes once Duncan retired - his passing out of the post and the space outside that his presence inside created for shooters was huge for them. So Pop adjusted. But WITH Duncan starting in about 2007, he had the Spurs running a high octane pace and space motion offense that a lot of the league (including Kerr with the Warriors) took copious notes on, which is what Briggs was saying.

If you go back and compare the Spurs to earlier years, when Pop was innovating this system:

3pt rate / 100 poss.

Spurs 06-07 - 6th
Spurs 07-08 - 8th
Spurs 08-09 - 8th
Spurs 09-10 - 10th
Spurs 10-11 - 6th
Spurs 11-12 - 5th
Spurs 12-13 - 9th
Spurs 13-14 - 16th (spurs shoot fewer threes? parker/duncan/manu aging? who knows, but pop adapted)

source - https://www.teamrankings.com/nba/stat/three-point-rate?date=2015-06-16

Good teams adjust their game plan to their roster. I don't think Pop has written down anywhere "we have to shoot 20 threes for every 100 possessions" or something. I don't even think Kerr does - I think if Curry and Klay retired, Kerr would probably devise a different system. Good coaches do that. Kerr wouldn't hand the ball to say James Harden and say "try to be Steph Curry", he'd probably design a system that used more pick and roll, and took advantage of Harden's line drives to the rim.

The problems are - being morally opposed to the three, which Phil it sometimes seems is based on his tweets about the Warriors and Curry. The other problem is trying to force a roster that should be playing one way into playing another way, rather than adjust your team approach to the talent you have. That was my issue with MDA here, when he tried to make Melo a point forward - Woodson famously claimed he used MDA's offense... but he tweaked Melo's role in it and his expectations of Melo in it, that's the key. I have the same issue with Phil - it seems he believes the Triangle needs to happen at all costs, he's seemingly undercut two coaches to make it happen.

knicks1248 wrote:Right now Kurt Rambis is the coach and JH is the assistant, because a head coach can run a system he knows very little about..and we look exactly like we did 12 months ago, and who was the head coach then

Phil didn't know the Triangle when he took over the Bulls!!! Tex ran the offense!!!

knicks1248 wrote:

nixluva wrote:

KnicksFE wrote:

Nalod wrote:

BRIGGS wrote:

Nalod wrote:I'd rather have a season like this than succumb to mediocrity and starphuch like roster.
We need players who hustle off the ball, play defense, and will commit to system. Call it what ever you want but when players are Iso first, have no aptitude for a team concept then they are not part of a winning team.
Players like that can succeed with Lebron because he makes others around him better.

What the team needs most is Lonzo Ball. It needs a brain. Somehow getting Ball would be the equivilant of getting Ewing. The management is poor-- we need no brainer a with some luck as well up top with a plan to make us more athletic as well

True, but at the same time the Lonzo Ball Hype machine is in full swing.
Im not emotional about the team after a loss as you might be. You do tend to post a bit about what we need. I do get on you for that.
YOur not wrong, but the time and space of how this happens takes years and luck. Parker in Milwaukee has been a hard luck situation while Giannis is an allstar, he is still raw and developing nicely. Philly for all its picks has yet to draft that one cornerstone bluechip player. Simmons might be the one. My point is not to excuse or defend phil, only that a rebuild takes time. Patience is something phil has, but not fans and not media.

If Phil had patience he wouldn’t have gone for NOW PLAYERS. For the 100000000000 times, Phil DID NOT intended to rebuild, he just did a crappy job building a right now team. The Knicks are loosing games because they are a bad team not because of this great rebuilding plan.

Phil didn't have the luxury of 1st rd picks every year. He had to try and use Free Agency to put a team together. Now he doesn't have to rely on that alone. He said from day one that he wanted a future component to the team and he's been gradually adding youth and this summer he's gonna add even more young talent. It's not an accident that we have 3 picks!!!

Do you realiz that the same teams that were in the lottery when Phil was hired are still in the lottery this season 3 yrs later. Except the wizards who ended up trading their pick...

Obviously there's more to it than just being in the Lottery. You still have to have a plan and vision for team building using all the options including Free Agency and Trades but you need to use the draft to build a core.

You don't ever explain what your alternative would be for this team!!!